The 

void for vagueness doctrine =  expresses the rule that for an act to SPARK V. QC (G.R. NO. 225442. AUGUST 08, 2017) Furthermore, petitioners claim that the Manila
constitute a crime, the law must expressly and clearly declare such act a crime. ... Ordinance, particularly Section 4[19] thereof,
Second, a penal statute must confine law enforcers within well-defined This petition assails the constitutionality of the curfew ordinances
boundaries to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement of the law. issued by the local governments of Quezon City, Manila, and contravenes Section 57-A[20] of RA 9344, as amended,
Navotas. given that the cited curfew provision imposes on
What does it mean to have due process? minors the penalties of imprisonment, reprimand, and
Due process =  is a requirement that legal matters be resolved according to FACTS: Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte admonition. They contend that the imposition of
established rules and principles, and that individuals be treated fairly. Due to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several local penalties contravenes RA 9344's express command
process applies to both governments in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their
curfew ordinances on minors through police operations which were that no penalty shall be imposed on minors for curfew
publicly known as part of "Oplan Rody. violations.[
What is certiorari in the Philippines?
In law, certiorari =  is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a (SPARK)- an association of young adults and minors that aims to In this regard, they suggest massive street lighting
lower court or government agency. ... In modern law, certiorari is recognized in forward a free and just society, in particular the protection of the programs, installation of CCTVs (closed-circuit
many jurisdictions, including England and Wales (now called "quashing order"), rights and welfare of the youth and minors[10] - filed this present
Canada, India, Ireland, the Philippines and the United States. petition, arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional
televisions) in public streets, and regular visible
because they: patrols by law enforcers as other viable means of
protecting children and preventing crimes at night.
Void for Vagueness. The assailed pieces of ordinance are NOT void for (a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall
under the void for vagueness doctrine;
being vague. (b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate
They further opine that the government can impose
"A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it activities of minors during curfew hours; more reasonable sanctions, i.e., mandatory parental
lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence (c) deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel without counseling and education seminars informing the
substantive due process; and parents of the reasons behind the curfew, and that
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its (d) deprive parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the
youth without substantive due process. imprisonment is too harsh a penalty for parents who
application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects:
=In addition, petitioners assert that the Manila Ordinance allowed their children to be out during curfew hours.
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, contravenes RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630.
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
ISSUE: The primordial issue for the Court's
conduct to avoid; and While petitioners recognize that the Curfew Ordinances resolution in this case is whether or not the Curfew
(2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in contain provisions indicating the activities exempted from the
Ordinances are unconstitutional.
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary operation of the imposed curfews, i.e., exemption of working
flexing of the Government muscle. students or students with evening class, they contend that
the lists of exemptions do not cover the range and breadth of HELD: The petition is partly granted. 
legitimate activities or reasons as to why minors would be out
In this case, petitioners' invocation of the void for vagueness at night, and, hence, proscribe or impair the legitimate WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY
doctrine is improper, considering that they do not properly activities of minors during curfew hours. GRANTED.
identify any provision in any of the Curfew Ordinances, which, Petitioners likewise proffer that the Curfew Ordinances: The Court hereby declares Ordinance No. 8046,
because of its vague terminology, fails to provide fair warning (a) are unconstitutional as they deprive minors of the right to
issued by the local government of the City of Manila,
and notice to the public of what is prohibited or required so that liberty and the right to travel without substantive due process;
and Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. No. 99-02, as
[16]
one may act accordingly.[49] The void for vagueness doctrine  and
(b) fail to pass the strict scrutiny test, for not being narrowly amended by Pambayang Ordinansa Blg. 2002-13
is premised on due process considerations, which are issued by the local government of Navotas
tailored and for employing means that bear no reasonable
absent from this particular claim. relation to their purpose. City, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and,
thus, NULL and VOID; while Ordinance No. SP-
Essentially, petitioners only bewail the lack of enforcement Per se' is a Latin term which literally means, “by itself”, 2301, Series of 2014, issued by the local government
parameters to guide the local authorities in the proper “in itself” or “of itself” of the Quezon City is
apprehension of suspected curfew offenders. declared CONSTITUTIONAL and,
They do not assert any confusion as to what conduct They argue that the prohibition of minors on streets thus, VALID in accordance with this Decision.
the subject ordinances prohibit or not prohibit but during curfew hours will not per se protect and
only point to the ordinances' lack of enforcement promote the social and moral welfare of children of
guidelines. the community.
The pieces of ordinance have sufficient standards as The stated purposes of the Curfew Ordinances,
provided by special law. inally, it may be well to point out that the Curfew specifically the promotion of juvenile safety and
Ordinances positively influence children to spend prevention of juvenile crime, inarguably serve the
Petitioners are mistaken in claiming that there are no sufficient more time at home. Consequently, this situation interest of public safety. The restriction on the
standards to identify suspected curfew violators. While it is true provides parents with better opportunities to take a minor's movement and activities within the confines
that the Curfew Ordinances do not explicitly state these more active role in their children's upbringing. of their residences and their immediate vicinity
parameters, law enforcement agents are still bound to follow the during the curfew period is perceived to reduce the
prescribed measures found in statutory law when implementing Petitioners are partially correct that the probability of the minor becoming victims of or
ordinances. Specifically, RA 9344, as amended, provides: Curfew Ordinances violate the people's right getting involved in crimes and criminal activities. As
to travel. to the second requirement, i.e., that the limitation
Section 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a child may be "be provided by law," our legal system is replete with
determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal The right to travel is recognized and guaranteed as a laws emphasizing the State's duty to afford special
certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of fundamental right[88] under Section 6, Article III of the protection to children, i.e., RA 7610,[98] as amended,
these documents, age may be based on information from the 1987 Constitution, to wit: RA 9775,[99] RA 9262,[100] RA 9851, [101] RA 9344,[102] RA
child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the 10364,[103] RA 9211,[104] RA 8980,[105] RA 9288,[106] and
physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the Presidential Decree (PD) 603,[107] as amended.
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
Pursuant to Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630, impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither Philippine jurisprudence has developed three (3)
[54]
 minors caught in violation of curfew ordinances are shall the right to travel be impaired except in the tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the
children at risk and, therefore, covered by its provisions.[55] It interest of national security, public safety, or public reasonableness of classifications.
is a long-standing principle that "[c]onformity with law is health, as may be provided by law.
one of the essential requisites for the validity of a The strict scrutiny test applies when a
municipal ordinance."[56] Hence, by necessary implication, Jurisprudence provides that this right refers to the classification either
ordinances should be read and implemented in conjunction right to move freely from the Philippines to other (i) interferes with the exercise of
with related statutory law. countries or within the Philippines fundamental rights, including the basic
liberties guaranteed under the
Right of Parents to Rear their ChildrenPetitioners Nevertheless, grave and overriding Constitution, or
are NOT CORRECT that the Curfew Ordinances are considerations of public interest justify (ii) burdens suspect classes.
unconstitutional because they deprive parents of their natural restrictions even if made against fundamental [123]
The intermediate scrutiny
and primary right in the rearing of the youth without rights.  test applies when a classification does not
substantive due process. Specifically on the freedom to move from one place to involve suspect classes or fundamental
another, jurisprudence provides that this right is not rights, but requires heightened scrutiny,
In this regard, they assert that this right includes the right to absolute.[95] As the 1987 Constitution itself reads, the such as in classifications based on gender
determine whether minors will be required to go home at a State[96] may impose limitations on the exercise of this and legitimacy.
certain time or will be allowed to stay late outdoors. right, provided that they: (iii)  Lastly, the rational basis test applies
to all other subjects not covered by the
W]here minors are involved, the State acts as parens patriae. To it is (1) serve the interest of national security, first two tests.
cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual who public safety, or public health; and 
because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position,  vis-a
vis other parties. Unable as they are to take due care of what concerns them, Considering that the right to travel is a fundamental right in our
they have the political community to look after their welfare. This obligation the (2) are provided by law. legal system guaranteed no less by our Constitution, the strict
state must live up to. It cannot be recreant to such a trust. As was set forth in an scrutiny test  is the applicable test.  At this juncture, it
[126] [127]

opinion of the United States Supreme Court: "This prerogative of parens should be emphasized that minors enjoy the same
patriae  is inherent in the supreme power of every State, x x constitutional rights as adults; the fact that the State has
x."  (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
[69] broader authority over minors than over adults does not
trigger the application of a lower level of scrutiny.
The strict scrutiny test as applied to minors  entails a consideration of After a thorough evaluation of the ordinances' respective Third, the Navotas Ordinance does not
the peculiar circumstances of minors vis-a-vis the State's duty as parens provisions, this Court finds that only the Quezon City accommodate avenues for minors to engage in
patriae to protect and preserve their well-being with the compelling State Ordinance meets the above-discussed requirement, political rallies or attend city council meetings to
interests justifying the assailed government act. Under the strict scrutiny while the Manila and Navotas Ordinances do not.
test, a legislative classification that interferes with the exercise of a
voice out their concerns in line with their right to
fundamental right or operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class is The Manila Ordinance cites only four (4) exemptions from the peaceably assemble and to free expression.
presumed unconstitutional.[131] Thus, the government has the burden of coverage of the curfew. For its part, the Navotas Ordinance
proving that the classification provides more exceptions. It also exempts minors from the Certainly, minors are allowed under the Navotas
curfew during these specific occasions: Christmas eve, Ordinance to engage in these activities outside curfew
(i) is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest, and Christmas day, etc. hours, but the Court finds no reason to prohibit them
(ii) is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or from participating in these legitimate activities during
the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the This Court observes that these two ordinances are not curfew hours. Such proscription does not advance the
interest. narrowly drawn in that their exceptions are inadequate State's compelling interest to protect minors from the
and therefore, run the risk of overly restricting the
dangers of the streets at night, such as becoming prey
Based on these findings, their city councils found it necessary to enact minors' fundamental freedoms. To be fair, both ordinances
curfew ordinances pursuant to their police power under the general protect the rights to education, to gainful employment, and to or instruments of criminal activity. These legitimate
welfare clause.[140] In this light, the Court thus finds that the local travel at night from school or work. activities are merely hindered without any reasonable
governments have not only conveyed but, in fact, attempted to relation to the State's interest; hence, the Navotas
substantiate legitimate concerns on public welfare, especially with However, even with those safeguards, the Navotas Ordinance is not narrowly drawn. More so, the Manila
respect to minors. As such, a compelling State interest exists for the Ordinance and, to a greater extent, the Manila Ordinance still Ordinance, with its limited exceptions, is also not
enactment and enforcement of the Curfew Ordinances. do not account for the reasonable exercise of the narrowly drawn.
minors' rights of association, free exercise of religion,
With the first requirement of the strict scrutiny test satisfied, the Court rights to peaceably assemble, and of free expression,  the Manila and Navotas Ordinances should be
now proceeds to determine if the restrictions set forth in the Curfew among others.
completely stricken down since their exceptions,
Ordinances are narrowly tailored or provide the least restrictive means to
address the cited compelling State interest - the second requirement of The exceptions under the Manila Ordinance are too which are essentially determinative of the scope and
the strict scrutiny test. limited, and thus, unduly trample upon protected liberties. breadth of the curfew regulations, are inadequate to
The Navotas Ordinance is apparently more protective of ensure protection of the above-mentioned
1.The "least restrictive means,"= test is a standard imposed by the courts constitutional rights than the Manila Ordinance; nonetheless, fundamental rights. 
when considering the validity of legislation that touches upon it still provides insufficient safeguards as discussed in
constitutional interests. If the government enacts a law that restricts a detail below: The Quezon City Ordinance stands in stark
fundamental personal liberty, it must employ the least restrictive contrast to the first two (2) ordinances as it
measures possible to achieve its goal. This test applies even when the First, although it allows minors to engage in school or church
activities, it hinders them from engaging in legitimate non- sufficiently safeguards the minors'
government has a legitimate purpose in adopting the particular law.
school or non-church activities in the streets or going to and constitutional rights. It provides the
from such activities; thus, their freedom of association is following exceptions:
2.)Narrow drawn=Confidential information may not be
effectively curtailed. It bears stressing that participation in
disclosed without the specific permission of the party legitimate activities of organizations, other than school or
submitting it, subject to disclosure ordered by "a narrowly church, also contributes to the minors' social, emotional, and
drawn protective order". Or intellectual development, yet, such participation is not
to carefully draft laws or make policies to address a specific exempted under the Navotas Ordinance.
objective without affecting other rights or the smooth running Second, although the Navotas Ordinance does not impose the
of business etc. curfew during Christmas Eve and Christmas day, it effectively
The second requirement of the strict scrutiny test stems from the fundamental prohibits minors from attending traditional religious activities (such
premise that citizens should not be hampered from pursuing legitimate activities as simbang gabi) at night without accompanying adults, similar to
in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While rights may be restricted, the the scenario depicted in Mosier.[149] This legitimate activity done
restrictions must be minimal or only to the extent necessary to achieve the pursuant to the minors' right to freely exercise their religion is
purpose or to address the State's compelling interest. When it is possible for therefore effectively curtailed.
governmental regulations to be more narrowly drawn to avoid conflicts with
constitutional rights, then they must be so narrowly drawn. As compared to the first two (2) ordinances, the list of
The Quezon City Ordinance stands in stark contrast to exceptions under the Quezon City Ordinance is more Thus springs the question of whether local governments
the first two (2) ordinances as it sufficiently safeguards narrowly drawn to sufficiently protect the minors' could validly impose on minors these sanctions
the minors' constitutional rights. It provides the rights of association, free exercise of religion, travel, to (a) community service;
peaceably assemble, and of free expression. Thus, with these (b) reprimand and admonition;
following exceptions: numerous exceptions, the Quezon City Ordinance, in (c) fine; and
truth, only prohibits unsupervised activities that (d) imprisonment. Pertinently, Sections 57 and 57-A of
Section 4. EXEMPTIONS - Minor children under the following hardly contribute to the well-being of minors who RA 9344, as amended, prohibit the imposition of
circumstances shall not be covered by the provisions of this publicly loaf and loiter within the locality at a time penalties on minors for status offenses such as
ordinance;  where danger is perceivably more prominent. curfew violations.

(a)Those accompanied by their parents or guardian; To note, there is no lack of supervision when a parent R.A. No. 9344, one bill passed into law,
Those on their way to or from a party, graduation ceremony, duly authorizes his/her minor child to run lawful institutionalized the promotion of the well-being of child
religious mass, and/or other extra-curricular activities of errands or engage in legitimate activities during the and their families, involvement of parents and
their school or organization wherein their attendance are night, notwithstanding curfew hours. As astutely guardians, promotion of diversion, avoiding deprivation
(b observed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. of liberty and protecting the privacy rights of children.
required or otherwise indispensable, or when such minors
) Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
are out and unable to go home early due to circumstances
during the deliberations on this case, parental In this regard, requiring the minor to perform
beyond their control as verified by the proper authorities
permission is implicitly considered as an exception community service is a valid form of
concerned; and
found in Section 4, item (a) of the Quezon City intervention program that a local
Those attending to, or in experience of, an emergency situation government (such as Navotas City in this case)
Ordinance, i.e., "[t]hose accompanied by their
(c) such as conflagration, earthquake, hospitalization, road accident, could appropriately adopt in an ordinance to
parents or guardian", as accompaniment
law enforcers encounter, and similar incidents[;] promote the welfare of minors.
should be understood not only in its actual
When the minor is engaged in an authorized employment but also in its constructive sense.
(d
activity, or going to or returning home from the same place of The sanction of admonition imposed by the
)
employment activity without any detour or stop; Penal Provisions of the Manila Ordinance City of Manila is likewise consistent with
When the minor is in [a] motor vehicle or other travel Sections 57 and 57-A of RA 9344 as it is merely
(e)
accompanied by an adult in no violation of this Ordinance; Going back to the Manila Ordinance, this Court a formal way of giving warnings and expressing
(f) When the minor is involved in an emergency; deems it proper - as it was raised- to further discuss disapproval to the minor's misdemeanor.
When the minor is out of his/her residence attending an the validity of its penal provisions in relation to RA Admonition is generally defined as a "gentle or
official school, religious, recreational, educational, social, 9344, as amended. friendly reproof' or "counsel or warning against fault
communitv or other similar private activity sponsored by the or oversight."[163] Notably, the Revised Rules on
(g city, barangay, school, or other similar private civic/religious To recount, the Quezon City Ordinance, while Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS)
) organization/group (recognized by the community) that penalizing the parentis or guardian under Section 8 and our jurisprudence in administrative cases
supervises the activity or when the minor is going to or thereof,[154] does not impose any penalty on the explicitly declare that "a warning or admonition
minors. For its part, the Navotas Ordinance requires shall not be considered a penalty.
returning home from such activity, without any detour or
the minor, along with his or her parent/s or
stop; and guardian/s, to render social civic duty and
When the minor can present papers certifying that he/she is a community service either in lieu of - should the
(h student and was dismissed from his/her class/es in the evening or parent/s or guardian/s of the minor be unable to pay
) that he/she is a working student.  (Emphases and underscoring
[152]
the fine imposed - or in addition to the fine imposed
supplied) therein.[155] Meanwhile, the Manila Ordinance
imposed various sanctions to the minor based
on the age and frequency of violations.
A different conclusion, however, is reached with regard to reprimand and In fine, the Manila and Navotas Ordinances are It likewise observed that while the Navotas ordinance was
fines and/or imprisonment imposed by the City of Manila on the declared unconstitutional and thus, null and void, apparently more protective of constitutional rights than
minor.  Reprimand is a formal and public pronouncement made to while the Quezon City Ordinance is declared as the Manila ordinance, it still provided insufficient
denounce the error or violation committed, to sharply criticize and
rebuke the erring individual, and to sternly warn the erring
constitutional and thus, valid in accordance with this safeguards in that it hindered minors from engaging in
individual including the public against repeating or committing the Decision. legitimate non-school or non-church activities in the
same, and thus, may unwittingly subject the erring individual or violator to streets; it effectively prohibited minors from attending
unwarranted censure or sharp disapproval from others. In fact, the MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has declared traditional religious activities (such as simbang gabi or
RRACCS and our jurisprudence explicitly indicate that reprimand is a the curfew for minors implemented in Quezon City as dawn masses) at night without accompanying adults; and
penalty,[170] hence, prohibited by Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended. constitutional. it did not accommodate avenues for minors to engage in
but unconstitutional in Manila and Navotas political rallies or attend city council meetings to voice
Fines and/or imprisonment, on the other hand, undeniably
constitute penalties - as provided in our various criminal and out their concerns in line with their right to peaceably
administrative laws and jurisprudence - that Section 57-A of RA 9344, as assemble and to free expression.
amended, evidently prohibits. . In ruling on the petition for certiorari and prohibition
filed by SPARK questioning the constitutionality of the
curfew ordinances, the Court found it proper to examine The Court noted that the Quezon City ordinance “stands
As worded, the prohibition in Section 57-A is clear, categorical, and the assailed regulations under the strict scrutiny test — the in stark contrast to the first two ordinances as it
unambiguous. It states that "[n]o penalty shall be imposed on
test of judicial scrutiny which applies when a classification sufficiently safeguards the minors’ constitutional rights”
children for x x x violations [of] juvenile status offenses]." Thus, for
imposing the sanctions of reprimand, fine, and/or imprisonment on minors interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights — as the as its list of exceptions is more narrowly drawn to
for curfew violations, portions of Section 4 of the Manila Ordinance ordinances set restrictions on the minors’ exercise of their sufficiently protect the minors’ rights of association, free
directly and irreconcilably conflict with the clear language of Section 57-A right to travel under Section 6, Art. III of the Constitution. exercise of religion, travel, to peaceably assemble, and of
of RA 9344, as amended, and hence, invalid. On the other hand, the free expression.
impositions of community service programs and admonition on the minors Under the strict scrutiny test, the government has the
are allowed as they do not constitute penalties. burden of proving that the classification is necessary to “In particular, the Quezon City Ordinance provides for
CONCLUSION
achieve a compelling state interest, and is the least adequate exceptions that enable minors to freely exercise
restrictive means to protect such interest or the means their fundamental rights during the prescribed curfew
In sum, while the Court finds that all three Curfew Ordinances have chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest. hours, and therefore, narrowly drawn to achieve the
passed the first prong of the strict scrutiny test - that is, that the State State’s purpose,” said the Court.
has sufficiently shown a compelling interest to promote juvenile safety After a thorough evaluation of the provisions of the
and prevent juvenile crime in the concerned localities, only the Quezon ordinances, the Court found that only the Quezon City SPARK, a group of students in the three cities, argued in
City Ordinance has passed the second prong of the strict scrutiny test, as ordinance met the said requirement as the Manila and their petition filed through lawyer Jesus Falcis III that the
it is the only issuance out of the three which provides for the least
restrictive means to achieve this interest. In particular, the Quezon Navotas ordinances were not narrowly drawn in that their curfew ordinances are unconstitutional due to vagueness
City Ordinance provides for adequate exceptions that enable minors to exceptions were inadequate and run the risk of overly as they result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
freely exercise their fundamental rights during the prescribed curfew restricting the minors’ fundamental freedoms. and overbreadth as they impair legitimate activities of
hours, and therefore, narrowly drawn to achieve the State's purpose. minors during curfew hours.
“To be fair, both ordinances protect the rights to education,
Section 4 (a) of the said ordinance, i.e., "[t]hose accompanied by to gainful employment, and to travel at night from school
their parents or guardian", has also been construed to include or work,” said the Court. Petitioner also claimed a violation of the right of minors
parental permission as a constructive form of accompaniment to liberty and to travel without substantive due process,
and hence, an allowable exception to the curfew measure; the adding that the curfew “deprives parents of the natural
manner of enforcement, however, is left to the discretion of the and primary right in the rearing of the youth without
local government unit. substantive due process.”